20th century jurisprudence was a long march through the rights of states to govern themselves, by applying the bill of rights to the states through the 14th Amendment, something that was never intended. States could, for example, establish a religion under the Constitution. The Congress could not. (States had abandoned official religions by the time of the 14th Amendment, but that cam about because of people acting through democratic processes.) States did not have a second amendment, but most protected the right to bear arms. States did not have a 4th amendment, but the citizens of the individual states demanded that their constables not enter their houses without valid warrants. It was our nature. Freedom. Not because the feds demanded it, but because people were accustomed to certain rights that preexisted even the Constitution.
During the last century, that all changed, through a crackpot theory that the 14th amendment requirement of due process (intended to apply to freed slaves) meant that the protections of the bill of rights applied to the states. This in turn resulted in a new power shift from the states to the feds. The states now had to do a wide variety of things the way the feds dictated, and it gave the feds the power to review almost anything done in any state legal situation, from the speed of trials, the right to be silent, and the right to be free from warrantless searches and arrests.
Now, I take a back seat to no one in demanding that the rights enshrined in the bill of rights be extended to all of us. But they were already. No state did not have its own bill of rights that basically mirrored the feds. They all did. They still do. However, not they aren't worth the digital hard drives they are saved on. Whatever they say doesn't matter, because the fed's version is what governs, federal courts are the arbiters, and the central government gains control over state legislatures. In that way, states become mere departments of the federal government, not sovereign units of a federated nation.
You may like that development, but I do not. The patriots at this site do not. I do not agree with the proposition that the only way to prevent law enforcement from violating civil rights is through the exclusionary rule; it is just the remedy that one court came up with and then decreed as the law of the land. There are many other ways that such conduct could be deterred, and it is entirely possible that a state could decide that it doesn't care as much about violations as it does about crime. That is a balancing of interests that is a decidedly legislative determination, not a judicial one. Creating a remedy is not the role of a judge. When a judge does that, they are as much a jackboot thug ignoring the rights of the citizenry as the cop they are purporting to punish.
Can there be problems in a state? Sure. You might have racists denying people their rights, as in the Jim Crow south. Or you might have a corrupt city machine running things, as in Chicago, Boston or NYC. Laws are meaningless if they are not followed. However, the solution to local problems is not federal control of all localities. Centralized power is the worst of all. What do we do when that becomes corrupt, or its laws are not enforced. (Hint: You're finding out right now). When states dishonor their own laws, or fail to respect the privileges and immunities of all their citizens, there can be a role for the feds. But that role does not involve legislating for the states. It might involve, for example, ensuring that all a state's citizens are allowed to vote. And that, self-government, is generally the solution.
Whether you are sober on this Saturday afternoon, or have been knocking a few back watching March Madness and pontificating about things you only know superficially, I don't know, and so don't make any presumptions. I only know that it appears you have bought the lie that judges assuming powers they don't have to dictate to citizens and states has been a good thing, and the only way to protect our rights. And on that, we will have to strenuously disagree.
Attempts to claim that the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to emancipated slaves are preposterous given its language and history.
Like I said: sober up, or learn some history and then come back.
Cops don't have a right to violate the Bill of Rights. Period. Your supposed "remedy" puts the foxes in charge of the hen house, but current and past police behavior establishes clearly that they don't have the integrity for the job.